CASE SUMMARY: CHAMAN LATA BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS V. NIRMAL DEVI

Case Details

• Full Case Name: Chaman Lata Bhardwaj and Others v. Nirmal Devi
• Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3794; Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4173
• Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
• Bench: N.B. Krishna, J. (Single Judge)
• Case No.: RFA 636/2023 with CM APPL. 40775/2023
• Nature of Proceeding: Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’)
• Date of Reservation: 07 April 2026
• Date of Judgment: 12 May 2026
• Counsel: For the Appellants: Mr. Jai Wadhwa and Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Sharma and Ms. Aditi, Advocates.
• Court Appealed From: Judgment dated 05.04.2023 and Order dated 17.01.2023 of the learned Additional District Judge

Facts

The Plaintiff, Nirmal Devi, had a long-standing friendship with the late Sh. Rajender Kumar Bhardwaj, husband of Defendant No. 1, Chaman Lata Bhardwaj. Both were government school teachers, and their families had a history of lending each other money. After the death of Nirmal’s husband on 26.10.2014, she received nearly Rs. 18,74,789 as compensation. In October 2015, Defendant No. 1 sought a loan of Rs. 10,00,000, but Nirmal ultimately lent Rs. 8,50,000, documented in a written Agreement Deed on 06.11.2015, with a security cheque provided. However, this cheque and two replacements bounced due to “Insufficient Funds” repeatedly between February 2016 and November 2017. Despite legal notices issued for repayment, the Defendants denied the existence of the loan and cheques.

Nirmal subsequently filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount with interest. The Defendants claimed the signatures on the cheques and the Agreement were forged and argued they were not responsible for any debts of the deceased. During the trial, the Defendants failed to appear and did not cross-examine witnesses, leading to an ex parte decision on 10.05.2022. The trial court ruled in favor of Nirmal, holding all three legal heirs responsible for the deceased’s debts regarding their inherited property. The Defendants appealed the decision to the Delhi High Court.

 Issues

1. Did the Plaintiff have a right to sue the Defendants, who claimed not to have inherited any assets from the deceased?
2. Were the signatures on the cheques and the Agreement Deed forged and did the Plaintiff have to prove them through a handwriting expert?
3. Was the Plaintiff entitled to the recovery of Rs. 8,50,000 And interest at 24% per annum?
4. Was the trial court correct in dismissing the Defendants’ application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to recall the ex parte order, including whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 applied?

Arguments of the Parties

A. Appellants (Defendants)

• The signatures on the cheques and the Agreement Deed were not in the handwriting of the deceased. Were forged. This required the Plaintiff to prove the signatures through a handwriting expert.
• None of the Defendants had inherited any property from the deceased so the burden was on the Plaintiff to prove inheritance before the Defendants could be held responsible.
• Their absence from the trial was because of the death of their counsel and their financial inability to hire an one, which led them to rely on the Legal Services Authority.
• The application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was wrongly dismissed late. The three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 should apply, based on the case of Visalakshi v. Umpathy.[1]
• The delay in cross-examining the Plaintiff was mainly due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the adjournments asked for by the Plaintiff herself not because of any fault by the Defendants.

B. Respondent (Plaintiff)

• The execution of the loan Agreement and the issuance of the cheques were proven by the Plaintiff (PW-1) her son (PW-4) and the witness Sh. Hari Prakash (PW-5). Their testimony about the signatures was not challenged.
• A general plea of forgery without details, proof or cross-examination cannot overcome documentary evidence that is supported by witness testimony and bank records.
• Once the loan Agreement and the cheques were established the burden was on the Defendants to prove that they were not legally liable. They failed to meet this burden.
• The Defendants admitted that they were heirs. Therefore they had to show that no estate or an insufficient estate was passed on to them. They did not provide any evidence for this. This is a matter for execution, not the suit.
• Their failure to appear despite being served and their explanation did not amount to ” cause” to recall the ex parte order.

Judgment

The High Court rejected the appeal in full. Confirmed the trial court’s judgment and decree saying that the Appellants had failed to show any mistake in the decision dated 05.04.2023 or the order dated 17.01.2023.

• On the plea of forgery

The court said that a simple claim of forgery without details without evidence and without any attempt to cross-examine the Plaintiff or her witnesses cannot override documentary evidence that is supported by witnesses and bank records. Once the loan Agreement and cheques were proven the burden was on the Defendants to show that the cheques were not issued or were not for a debt. They did not meet this burden. The court also said that while a handwriting expert can prove signatures it is not the way and unchallenged witness testimony is sufficient.

• On the liability of heirs

The Court held that although Order IX Rule 7 CPC prescribes no specific limitation period, an applicant must nonetheless establish “sufficient cause” for non-appearance during trial, per Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, and Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti.[2] “Sufficient cause” requires a bona fide, diligent explanation and does not extend to negligence or prolonged inaction, and a litigant cannot remain inactive after service and then shift blame entirely to counsel or general circumstances. As the Defendants’ explanation — demise of counsel, financial constraints, and COVID-19 disruption — was general and unparticularised, the trial court’s refusal to recall the ex parte order was upheld.

• On recall of the ex parte order (Order IX Rule 7 CPC)

The court said that even though there is no time limit for an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC the applicant must show ” cause” for not appearing in court. This requires an explanation, not just excuses like the death of a lawyer, financial problems or the pandemic. The Defendants’ explanation was too general. Did not meet this standard. The trial court was right to reject their request to recall the ex parte order.

Ratio Decidendi

• A general plea of forgery without details or evidence cannot defeat proof that is supported by witness testimony and other documents. A handwriting expert is one way to prove signatures. Not the only way.
• Once a loan agreement or a negotiable instrument is proven the burden is on the defendant to show they are not legally responsible. If they fail to do this the plaintiff can get a decision based on the balance of probabilities.
• Legal heirs who admit their status must explain the extent of the property they inherited to limit their liability. A simple claim that they did not inherit anything without proof does not stop a court from making a decision. The amount that can be collected is decided during execution.
• An application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC without a time limit must show a reason for not appearing. Vague or general reasons like the death of a lawyer or the pandemic are not enough.

Critical Analysis

• The judgment under review examines a case revolving around a friendly loan between families. Its significance lies not in the establishment of new laws, but in emphasizing three critical elements of Indian civil law: the implications of a weak forgery claim, the burden of proof placed on heirs, and the stringent requirements regarding missed trial justifications.
• The court’s analysis of the signature authentication aligns with established legal standards, notably sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, which dictate that the claimant bears the burden of proof.[3] Furthermore, section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 presumes cheques to be genuine unless rebutted.[4] The ruling clarifies that while handwriting analysis by experts is a valid method of verification, it is not mandatory for case success. This counters the misconception that absence of expert testimony equals failure, affirming the trustworthiness of those who can directly identify signatures unless their reliability is questioned.
• Regarding legal heirs, the court’s position is theoretically sound, asserting heirs are accountable only for what they inherit. However, the mechanism for calculating their liabilities appears vague, with the ruling suggesting heirs must demonstrate their inheritance’s extent at subsequent stages. This approach may inadequately protect heirs, particularly those with minimal inheritances, as they seem not actively involved in the proceedings, raising concerns about the adequacy of their protections.
• On the matter of time limits, the court’s ruling lacks clarity. The appellants argued that the three-year limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies universally to court applications; however, the court did not refute this.[5] Instead, it noted inconsistencies in high court interpretations regarding time limits, indicating that the adjudication hinges on whether valid.

References

[1]Visalakshi v Umpathy 2015 (5) CTC 67.

[2]Arjun Singh v Mohindra Kumar 1964 SCR (5) 946; G P Srivastava v R K Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54; Parimal v Veena @ Bharti (2011) 3 SCC 545.

[3]Indian Evidence Act 1872, ss 101–103.

[4]Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, s 118.

[5]Limitation Act 1963, sch, art 137.